Election UK '19

Just wondering how the British women here will vote? I don't know, I don't want Corbyn, that's for sure, for the guy is dangerous. He is a sympathiser of the IRA and other dodgical organisations and the anti-Semitism is making his party reek of National Socialism....

Then there is Jo Swinson. Now I like her, but she would not allow the people to decide about the EU, she will simply revoke article 50 and remain in the EU. That is soooooo undemocraticable.

Farage.... forget that!!!!!

Greens have made a pact with Jo Swinson…. too radical and undemocratic to have done that, it's supposed to be about green issues! Can't go there...

And then of course there is the Boris. Almost Trumpolian, but no, not really. At least the guy has a plan. At least the party has plans in place that are democratic and reasonable. Yes, for the first time in many years I shall forget the Green Party and vote Conservative. It is my decision that I will be stickying with! Once outta Europe with a good deal, I shall revert to Green.

Celia xx

It's a little more complicated than the US, but Boris would be out for sure.

I do not understand parliamentary style governance. Needing to invite strange bedfellows to the party ends up meaning really strange sex. Ooooops, I meant having to negotiate with strange minor parties ends up making bad law.

Well, usually one party gets what is called a majority and when 'whipped', (in other words vote with us or get kicked outta the party), the cabinet gets laws passed. But.... Brexit has changed much of the Parliamentary system, coz although MPs were given free votes by May. Johnson, on his attempt, threw a whip at it and 20 odd Conservatives broke the whip and got kicked out.

Then there was the Irish question so the Ulster Unionist, DUP, UU, etc., would not support the government as they usually do.

Finally there was the first rogue speaker, who made up lots of new rules and forced the government down with ridiculous rulings. Finally the courts got involved in Parliamentary politics as well. Dangerous precedents that has made our system less democratic and cannot seriously be questioned in future.

Otherwise the system works. But, the electoral system is antiquated and so outta date! It is as bad as the U.S., with Clinton getting more votes than Trump, in the state representative system.... except the Uks is much worse!

With the UKs first past the post 'seat wise' electing 650 Members of Parliament, rather than a vote proportional representation system, it throws up huge discrepencies...  The Scottish Nationalists got 35 seats with 900,000 votes. the Liberal Democrats got 2.3 million votes and just 12 seats. Green got 500,000 and just one! To be fair to Faragikins, UKIP got 600,000 votes in 2017 and no seats in Parliament.  ...… something aint right!

Celia xx

Celia Eriksson wrote:With the UKs first past the post 'seat wise' electing 650 Members of Parliament, rather than a vote proportional representation system, it throws up huge discrepencies...  The Scottish Nationalists got 35 seats with 900,000 votes. the Liberal Democrats got 2.3 million votes and just 12 seats. Green got 500,000 and just one! To be fair to Faragikins, UKIP got 600,000 votes in 2017 and no seats in Parliament.  ...… something aint right!

Celia xx

The US has an Executive (Trump), Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) and the Judiciary.

The Senate is comprised of two members from each state. California (where I live and the largest state by population [39,747,267]) and has two senators. Wyoming (the smallest state by population [572,381] also has two senators.

Currently, the Democrats hold a majority in the House of Representatives (233 to 197)and the Republicans hold a majority in the Senate (53 to 47). The House, during this term, has passed and forwarded to the Senate over 250 bills. Some of these bills are insignificant like naming a post office, but some are very significant like holding drug prices, immigration, voting rights and the like.

Senator Mitch McConnell, a Republican, Trump supporter and leader of the Senate has not brought forward any of these bills passed by the Democratic Majority in the House to the Senate floor for a vote.

Additionally, (I am not familiar with your court system), in the US we have a three level federal judiciary; the highest court being the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), comprised of 9 justices. Each justice (or judge in district and appellate courts) is appointed to serve upon 'good behavior', essentially for life.

Currently, there are five mostly conservative justices and four mostly liberal justices. One very liberal justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is her 80s and is suffering from several different types of cancer. If she were to resign or die, then the Senate would be in a position to confirm a very conservative future justice to be appointed by Trump. Having a 6 to 3 conservative majority on the SCOTUS will effectively reverse any progressive moves the US has made in the last 75 years.

The SCOTUS can overturn abortion rights, LGB...T rights, clean environmental legislation, increase corporate power, further erode voting rights and increase the Executive's ability to control our government.

Celia, I think we both live in troubling times with dysfunctional governments and we are losing whatever voices we had to control each of our destinies slowly, but surely.

MichaelaSJ wrote:

Celia, I think we both live in troubling times with dysfunctional governments and we are losing whatever voices we had to control each of our destinies slowly, but surely.

Wow, totally agree with that!

I will tell you what's what though! I never knew the Senate had 2 from each of the 50! Wyoming punches some power with their vote! It leaves a Cali like you hopelessley under-represented. That seems so unfair!!!!!! OMG!!!!

The SCOTUS thing sounds like what has just occurred here. A member of the public, unelected, bought cases against the government. Not only did she get heard, they listened!!! We don't want no SCOTUS type thingy! If we vote people in, we vote 'em in....

I believe, without doubt, that the UN should now be called upon to oversee all elections in all so-called 'democratic' nations and any meddling, (internal or external), interference discovered by the UN should call a result void and a new election ordered with the offending affiliation disqualified!!!!

Possibly with limits on $ and £ of campaign money being limited to a very low setting too! Let voices speak, not money!!!!!

I also think ideally, in a just world the UN should agree a universal fair, democratic ,proportional voting system for all, be it local, federal, state, national, parliamentary or presidential elections!

I can dream of true world democracy, why not everyone!!!!

Celia xx

Celia Eriksson wrote:I can dream of true world democracy...

Strong[wo]men will always accumulate power!

The US was never intended to be a true democracy but rather a democratic republic. The original signers of our Constitution concocted an abomination of a way to choose our President/Vice President - it is called the Electoral College.

Essentially, each state is given electors equal to the number of Senators and members of Congress a state has. Wyoming has two senators and one congressman hence three electoral votes. California, on the other hand has two senators and fifty-three congressional districts, hence 55 electoral votes.

There are many iterations of how to win the Electoral College vote and this is how Trump won the 2016 election. But he lost the popular vote by over three million votes. Unfortunately, we will forever have to live with the Electoral College as to change it would require an amendment to the Constitution and that would require a vote of 37 of the 50 states to ratify the amendment. That would mean that the smaller states like Wyoming, Kansas, Alabama, Alaska would give up their ability to choose the next POTUS - won't happen, EVER.

So, the US is stuck with an arcane choosing of its POTUS and the individual citizens must live with who the folk in Wyoming want as President.

Actually, it is the citizenry of a handful of states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, Wisconsin and a couple of others that will determine out next POTUS. These are called the swing states and will be bombarded with TV/Internet/Print advertisements during the next election cycle where I, living in California, which will invariably vote for a Democratic POTUS candidate will nary see one ad. Below is a map of how the states voted for Trump or Clinton:

Here is a image of the Bible Belt (are you starting to get a hint of what governs the USA?):

Yes, I see. that is really interesting. I did know of the electoral college and Bible belt thing, coz the US election gets first coverage on the news here unless something big happens here. but never had it explained. So the swing states are the key, of course.

Just a couple of questchys though, there also seems a bit of a North/South divide apart from the flyovers, not so clear, but definitely southern bias towards Republicans and Northern Democrats.... or do you think it's more coz it's urban towards Democrats and rural towards Republicans?

California is quite further north than most think actually, and now I get it, 2 senators but 53 congressmen..... anyway, this time next year it will be in full swing. When do you choose the candidates, is Trump a shoe in, or do the Republicans have to choose? Has the Dems process started?

One final question about those maps, who got the 7 college votes, marked 'other', is that the speaker?

Celia xx

Celia Eriksson wrote:Just a couple of questchys though, there also seems a bit of a North/South divide apart from the flyovers, not so clear, but definitely southern bias towards Republicans and Northern Democrats.... or do you think it's more coz it's urban towards Democrats and rural towards Republicans?

Traditionally, the 20th century Democrats represented the working class. The Democrats were also very popular in the South/Southeast part of the US. They were colloquially know as DixieCrats, but with the advent of a move towards racial equality in the late 1940s, they broke ranks and joined up with the Republicans.

Today, the Democrats are typically more educated, better employed and live in urban areas. The African American and Latino populations while they do tend to vote Democrat are increasingly hesitant about voting for anyone in general.

Celia Eriksson wrote:California is quite further north than most think actually, and now I get it, 2 senators but 53 congressmen..... anyway, this time next year it will be in full swing. When do you choose the candidates, is Trump a shoe in, or do the Republicans have to choose? Has the Dems process started?

I believe in the UK campaigning for office is limited to a couple of months (weeks).

In the US, our national elections will be held in November 2020, a full year from now. Campaigning for POTUS began earlier this year. Each state chooses a candidate for the Dems, GOP or third party (Greens and others) in separate 'Primary Elections'. The first of these primaries is actually a caucus held in the Plains state of Iowa this coming February. California will hold its primary March 3, 2020. The front runner from these early state's primaries has a good chance of being the Dems POTUS candidate.

As for Trump, he has a couple of challengers but they will not be chosen to run for POTUS. In fact, the Republicans are so in love with (maybe afraid of) Trump that a handful of states have dropped any potential primary where Trump would have actually stand against a legitimate GOP candidate.

Each party will hold a convention to choose their respective candidates. The Democratic convention will be held in July 2020. It is possible that if not enough delegates have been chosen via the state's primaries that the convention can choose a candidate. This doesn't happen often and it can through the process into further chaos.

Trump, if he is not thrown out of office will be the 2020 candidate for the GOP. The GOP convention will be in August 2020.

Celia Eriksson wrote:One final question about those maps, who got the 7 college votes, marked 'other', is that the speaker?

A quirk in the Electoral College system is the 'non'-requirement of the chosen Electors to actually cast their ballot for the candidate chosen by the popular vote in the respective states. The 'other' votes you mention may be third party candidates or an electoral simply not obeying the rules.

The Speaker is not required to be a member of the House of Representatives but is always chosen by the majority party.

Thank you Miki,

I understand it a lot better now. I hope you get a decent candidate. Many here are complaining of the choices, but most are behind Boris. It really should have been a time that Labour should have been pushing for government, but the present party is looking unelectable. Polls have been wrong here, I don't think they are very accurate, so God knows where they do their polling, but they get it wrong a lot. We will see.

Celia xx

I wish that Biden had thrown his hat into the POTUS ring in 2016.

As I have stated before I held my nose and voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and again in 1996. I once more held my nose and voted for Hilary Clinton in 2016. Both of these individuals, in my mind, lacked the integrity, the ethics to be my POTUS, but they were a better (in the case of Trump, a much better) choice.

As for the current crop of POTUS candidates, I will list a some of my issues:

• Joe Biden - a middle of the roader showing his age. I don't think he can really go head to head with Trump
  Elizabeth Warren - a light weight on anything other than health care or finance. She will not make a good POTUS candidate due to her very left views
  
• Bernie Sanders - a total loser in the general election for his very left views with no realistic manner to pay for these follies
  
• Pete Buttigieg - a solid middle of the roader who presents himself very well. His youth and being a gay man in a gay marriage will make him an easy target for Trump and the evangelical/far right to smear
  
• Everyone else - no one seems to want to rise to the top
  

Reflecting upon the 2008/2012 elections where Barrack Obama clearly stood out with his oratorical skills - there just doesn't seem to be anyone, save maybe Buttigieg, who can command an audience.

I just watched most of the Presidential Debate tonight and I think I have found two candidates I will watch very closely as we move towards next November:

• Amy Klobuchar - a current senator from the Midwest with progressive ideas moderated by a need to pay for them
  
• Pete Buttigieg - a mayor from a small Midwest city with progressive ideas that are also moderated by a need to pay for them
  

My thinking right now is Klobuchar/Buttigieg for POTUS/VPOTUS. Both of these individuals break many molds; they are not from the coastal strongholds of the Democratic elite. One is a woman one is gay yet they both span the values of middle America while preserving the hope of the coastal progressive.

While Trump will most certainly assign a demeaning nickname to each of them, I believe each of them has the personal internal sense of who they are that Trump's epithets well eventually fall on enough deaf ears to take the 2020 election away from him.

Hey Miki!

So, I tend to look at what the bookies say about such. Now, you know I liked Kamala as I thought she would appeal across the board of Democrat voters, but now I doubt she'll make it. What the hell, by the way is Gabbard's problem with her?

Here is the latest odds, and BTW, 2nd best for me would be Buttigieg!

Warren 3/1
Biden 3/1
Buttiegieg 4/1
Sanders 6/1
Clinton 12/1
Yang 20/1
Bloomberg 20/1
Klobuchar 33/1
Tyson 40/1
Harris 50/1
Gabbard 50/1
Obama 66/1
100/1 the field.

As a by the way, if ya think the candidate is definitely coming from the top 4, you could bet on them all and win, placing the right amounts. If I had to put my life on it,.... I'm gonna say Biden will get it, that's looking from the outside in and knowing how Americans tick. Maybe you can't see it, but that's who they'll choose, I am sure.

If it were me choosing, again outside in, best chance for the Presidency? Harris all the way!

Celia xx

When Kamala Harris won the 2008 statewide race for California Attorneys General, I told my wife that she would be POTUS one day.

I still think she would be a worthwhile choice for POTUS: just not this round.

Remember, while Obama won the 2008 Iowa Caucuses, H. Clinton won the next three states.

Hi Miki,

Well, let's hope if it has to be next time, she is not the 46th President, as I fear she will have to be if the Democrats get it wrong.... as I said, I am sure Biden will be chosen.

Celia xx

Well, it has hotted up muchly. I must first write of my condolences to the people that lost there lives in Borough yesterday. It was a terrible thing. Who would have thought, a man sentenced to 16 years and told it would definitely be 16 years would be released to kill just 7 years later.....

Mmmmm…. I don't know. Anyway, it appears that most Brits are thinking like me. We want Boris, but want better really. We want no cloudiness, no secretness, no shadiness Just open government. We certainly don't want Marxism..... that is why Boris will win. And that 'aint really right, for if Labour had placed someone up for election that firstly accepted the referendum vote and secondly was not Marxist and thirdly was not a sympathiser of very dodgy terrorist linked organisations.... then Labour would have easily won this election and I would have voted for them, for democratic reasons.

I vote Green, but as I say, this one is for the Conservatives and once democracy is restored, I shall revert back to voting Green everytime, unless a similar situation regarding democracy arises.

Celia xx

Celia Eriksson wrote:...Who would have thought, a man sentenced to 16 years and told it would definitely be 16 years would be released to kill just 7 years later.....

I think the western progressive world needs to re-think punishment and who do we punish the most.

In the States we have a tremendous gang problem. We currently do not have a domestic terrorism statute as our smartest legal minds can't figure out a way around our 1st Amendment (freedom of speech and the right to assemble).

Then, when we do capture a gang member we lock them up with fellow gang members in the same prison creating a mini-super gang. When these gang members get out many are worse criminals than when they were originally incarcerated.

In some parts of the States, mostly in the south, some minor crimes such as marijuana possession carry upwards of a life sentence.

We, the States are only slightly behind some countries in the number of our citizens behind bars. We need to keep some longer and let some go earlier. There are bad people out there that should not be allowed into a safe society.

Hi Miki!

I agree, coz locking people up for some fraud and deception cases seems to be overloaded. But, although the UK population has nearly doubled since the war, prison places have remained the same, around 85,000. It needs to be at least 160,000 now. There is no better deterrent than that, I do not believe in capital punishment, but if people are dangerous, then I would, for one, like to be protected from them.... 15 years for murder, when there are zero reciporical reasons. That is those that kill for greed, sexual gratification and pre-meditative revenge, deserves much, much longer. And fifteen years means 7 1/2 with good behaviour here!!!! Wrong, wrong, wrong!

Celia xx

Those short sentences for violent crimes in Europe leaves me scratching my head.

The monster that killed 77 adolescents in Norway in 2011 was only given 21 years for his acts. (Yes the sentence can be extended in 5 year increments if he is found to still be a danger to society.)  

Norway did remove some violent games from store shelves - but, come on.

There is murder and then there is MURDER. While some individuals may be rehabilitated in 5 or 10 or 21 years, there are violent people out there that should not see the light of a free day. Same with child molestation and adult sexual aggression.

The sentences in South America seem shorter too compare to the US. Popeye, Pablo Escobar's right hand man, got 23 years in prison for killing hundreds and arranging over 3000 murders. And is on YouTube now.

There were a couple of documentary on Escobar that detailed the horror of this man and his organization. His crew blew up Avianca Flight 203 with 107 passengers on board in 1989.

When the Columbian police finally caught him he negotiated a prison sentence to be served in a prison he build with his own drug money. He was ultimately gunned down in a police chase in 1993.

Did you see Escobar, el patrón del mal (2012)? I thought it was was outstanding and definitely worth watching. I liked narcos but this was much better even though it was in Spanish with English subtitles.

I did not see that iteration of the Escobar story.

As an aside, I watched Dr. Zhivago in Hong Kong in 1966. The dialogue was dubbed in Cantonese with English sub-titles. The irony of watching a very western film in a Hong Kong theatre was not lost on me.

What I was doing in a Hong Kong theatre is for discussion over a glass of wine. It was a truly delightful day in a US Naval sailor's young life.

MichaelaSJ wrote:I did not see that iteration of the Escobar story.

As an aside, I watched Dr. Zhivago in Hong Kong in 1966. The dialogue was dubbed in Cantonese with English sub-titles. The irony of watching a very western film in a Hong Kong theatre was not lost on me.

What I was doing in a Hong Kong theatre is for discussion over a glass of wine. It was a truly delightful day in a US Naval sailor's young life.

I'd love to hear that story over a glass of wine. If you like history I cannot recommend enough to watch that series. I'd say it's probably the best thing I saw, as addicting as Breaking Bad. 119. episodes It's the only Spanish novela I've ever liked , here's the trailer.  the one I saw was all in subtitles.

https://youtu.be/Fq5lrpOWy04